I'm adding these two case: Andrew Frank Hatch, Joao da Rosa as they seem very likely. Dare remove them. They have good chance of being validated. Piggy Fat (talk) 03:32, October 17, 2015 (UTC) Talk page.<
No point in having a list if you are going to "rank" unvalidated cases.
I beg to disagree. Why can't unvalidated supercentenarians who are researched and found to be very likely true be ranked? And as you can see the list starts at people who are above the age of 110. Do you have documentation to prove that you are above the age of 110? If not then you do not belong on this list. And furthermore, people from countries with unreliable claims and poor documentation aren't listed. 930310JL(talk) 16:13, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
Do you disagree just to disagree?
If you want to add a "status" sort filter column, that may be a good idea as it would allow the user to display the data based on their own expectations...validated only, validated plus pending, or validated, pending, and unvalidated (all).Ryoung122 (talk) 17:23, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
No, I do not "disagree just to disagree". I think that there is reason to list all cases ranked by their supposed/actual ages. This list does represent the real world number of supercentenarians better than the GRG's list. Compare the amount of listed people on the lists: this one has 172 supercentenarians listed, the GRG's Table E has 48. That does not mean that I am opposing the GRG's work and efforts to validate the ages of the oldest people in the world. I do however believe that it is reasonable to list supercentenarians where there has been research done and that it shows that their ages are likely accurate. 930310JL (talk) 18:38, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
Validated, Pending, Unvalidated (not yet checked)...
I think people can "see" the list and "see" that it's "more than 48" cases listed.
If you would like an alternate ranking column, then you need to create a separate column for that.
You could, for example, pro-actively have a "validated ranking" column (which is there), then a "validated plus pending" ranking, then a "validated, pending, and unvalidated" column...as long as you specify the operational parameters, I'm OK with displaying the data more than one way.
But to simply combine all the "data" into "one list" that hasn't been vetted is to engage in self-deception.
I agree that we should probably not mix validated and unvalidated data. So creating a list where the cases are seperated by category (verified/pending/unverified) would allow a better way to view each category. And then there could be a ranking for all the categories in the bottom, or in their respective tables so that we see how high the oldest pending/unverified would rank if he/she was validated. 930310JL (talk) 19:12, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
Updating Case Status
Andrew Hatch and João da Rosa need to be removed. And how come I can't appear to edit the page but he can? 18.104.22.168 20:45, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
Honorine Rondello 1,112 years old?
- To conserve space I would suggest to change the men's names to bold. CGT dk (talk) 20:15, December 10, 2015 (UTC)
Ethel Farrell passed away Dec. 20.